Jones v Lipman [1962]

February 26, 2024
Micheal James

Jurisdiction / Tag(s):

Introduction to Jones v Lipman [1962]

Jones v Lipman, decided in 1962 by the English High Court, stands as a landmark case in English company law, shaping the rules and principles surrounding “piercing the corporate veil.” The case centered around a property purchase agreement gone wrong, raising critical questions about when a company’s limited liability can be disregarded and legal responsibility placed on individual shareholders.

Facts of the Case

Mr. Jones and Mr. Lipman entered into a written contract for the sale of a property at £5,250. However, after the agreement was signed, Mr. Lipman had a change of heart and decided he no longer wanted to sell. Instead of simply breaching the contract and facing potential legal consequences, Mr. Lipman took a unique approach. He established a new company with himself as the sole shareholder and director. This newly formed company then purchased the property from Mr. Lipman, effectively taking it out of his personal name and seemingly shielding him from any contractual obligations to Mr. Jones.

Mr. Jones, understandably displeased with this maneuver, refused to accept Mr. Lipman’s company as the new owner of the property. He launched legal action against both Mr. Lipman and the company, demanding specific performance of the original contract and the sale of the property to him as agreed.

Arguments of the Parties

  • Mr. Jones:
    • Mr. Jones’ argument hinged on the concept of piercing the corporate veil. He argued that Mr. Lipman’s sole purpose in forming the company was to avoid his contractual obligations, constituting an abuse of the corporate structure. He emphasized the pre-existing agreement between himself and Mr. Lipman and Mr. Lipman’s complete control over the company as evidence of this manipulation. In essence, Mr. Jones contended that the company was merely a “sham” or “façade” created by Mr. Lipman to hide his personal liability.
  • Mr. Lipman:
    • Mr. Lipman’s defense relied on the principle of limited liability, a cornerstone of corporate law. He argued that the company should be treated as a distinct legal entity separate from himself. He emphasized that he followed all legal procedures in forming the company and denied any personal involvement in its actions. Furthermore, he challenged the claim of bad faith, asserting that he had legitimate business reasons for forming the company, independent of the property dispute with Mr. Jones.

Court’s Holding and Reasoning

The High Court sided with Mr. Jones, upholding his claim and ordering specific performance of the original contract. Justice Russell, delivering the judgement, established a critical precedent by finding that the corporate veil could be pierced in this case. He agreed with Mr. Jones’ argument that the company was indeed a “mere façade” created by Mr. Lipman to evade his contractual obligations. Mr. Lipman’s sole ownership and control over the company, coupled with the timing of its formation in relation to the property dispute, convinced the court that the company was not acting as a separate entity but merely as an extension of Mr. Lipman himself. Therefore, Mr. Lipman was held personally liable for the original agreement and forced to fulfill his obligation to sell the property to Mr. Jones.

Analysis and Impact

The Jones v Lipman case has had a profound impact on English company law and beyond. It clarified the circumstances under which piercing the corporate veil could be justified, providing valuable guidelines for courts addressing similar situations. The case established that limited liability is not absolute and can be disregarded when companies are used for improper purposes such as evading legal obligations or engaging in fraudulent activities. This precedent has served as a deterrent against the misuse of corporate structures and provided crucial tools for protecting individuals from potential harm caused by such maneuvers.

However, the case also triggered discussions about the potential undermining of the principle of limited liability. Some argue that the flexibility introduced by the “piercing the veil” doctrine could create uncertainty and unpredictability for businesses, making it difficult to rely on the protection of limited liability.


Jones v Lipman remains a landmark case in the realm of corporate law, balancing the principle of limited liability with the need to prevent abuse and protect individuals from harm. It exemplifies the complex relationship between corporate structures, personal responsibility, and the legal principles governing contractual obligations. The case continues to inform legal proceedings and shape legal developments, serving as a reminder that while corporations offer valuable benefits, they cannot be used as shields for unethical or illegal actions.

Why Choose Us:

Embark on your academic journey with confidence by choosing the best Law Dissertation Service. Our dedicated team of experts ensures meticulous research, comprehensive analysis, and top-notch writing to elevate your dissertation. Trust us to deliver excellence, guiding you through the complexities of legal academia with precision and proficiency.

Cite This Work

Select a referencing style to export a reference for this article:

All Answers ltd, 'Jones v Lipman [1962]' (, September 2012 ) <> accessed 25 April 2024
My, Law, Tutor. (September 2012 ). Jones v Lipman [1962]. Retrieved from
"Jones v Lipman [1962]." 9 2012. All Answers Ltd. 04 2024 <>.
"Jones v Lipman [1962]." MyLawTutor., September 2012. Web. 25 April 2024. <>.
MyLawTutor. September 2012. Jones v Lipman [1962]. [online]. Available from: [Accessed 25 April 2024].
MyLawTutor. Jones v Lipman [1962] [Internet]. September 2012. [Accessed 25 April 2024]; Available from:
<ref>{{cite web|last=Tutor |first=MyLaw |url= |title=Jones v Lipman [1962] | |date=September 2012 |accessdate=25 April 2024 |location=UK, USA}}</ref>

Related Cases

Dick Bentley v Harold Smith

. Last modified: April 24, 2024

Introduction to Dick Bentley v Harold Smith The world of contracts can be a complex one, especially when it comes to the interpretation of statements made during negotiations. Dick Bentley Productions Ltd v Harold Smith (Motors) Ltd [1965] stands as a significant case in English contract law, offering valuable insights into the distinction between a […]

Performance Cars v Abraham

. Last modified: April 15, 2024

Introduction to Performance Cars v Abraham Performance Cars Ltd v Abraham (1962) stands as a landmark case in English tort law, specifically regarding the concept of causation in negligence claims. This case study delves into the factual background, the legal issue at stake, the court’s decision and reasoning, and the lasting impact of the case […]

R v Hennessy – 1989

. Last modified: April 15, 2024

Introduction to R v Hennessy – 1989 The criminal justice system grapples with complex issues when a defendant’s actions seem involuntary due to a medical condition. R v Hennessy (1989) stands as a significant case in English law, delving into the boundaries of the defense of automatism in the context of diabetic hypoglycemia. This case […]

go to top